Readers of the American Thinker have no doubt heard numerous instances of the following disinformation about Cordoba, this version coming from Whitney S. Bowman in the Austin American-Statesman:

“The name ‘Cordoba House’ is significant. It is named after the famed medieval Spanish city of Cordoba where philosophers, mystics, artisans and poets–Muslim, Christian and Jewish–lived and shared together.

“Its libraries were vast, and the translations of Arabic works into Latin changed Europe and Christianity forever. Among the resident luminaries were Maimonides, a noted Jewish intellectual, the poet Ibn Hazm, and Averroes, the Muslim philosopher and mystic. A Saxon nun of the time called Cordoba ‘the brilliant ornament of the world.’ With the coming of the Inquisition and Christian exclusivism, the brilliance of Cordoba faded, but its significance endures as a vibrant, inter-religious community.”

The idea that Muslims, Christians, and Jews “lived and shared together” in medieval Cordoba could perhaps be dismissed as a rhetorical flight of fancy, but the idea that Christianity and the Inquisition ended the brilliance of Cordoba is a deliberate lie.

According to The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides, “the fundamentalist Almohad movement,” which “fought to restore the pristine faith of Islam, based on the Quran and the Sunna, and to enforce the precepts of the sacred law” (sound familiar?), conquered Cordoba in 1148 and drove out the ten-year-old Moses Maimonides and his family. They hid from the Almohads in Andalusia for ten years, then emigrated to Morocco, where Maimonides wrote his Epistle on Forced Conversion to console his Jewish brethren forced to choose between conversion to Islam and death. Later he moved to Cairo, where he achieved safety by acting as a physician to the Muslim rulers. Obviously, the great works of Moses Maimonides were not written in Cordoba, and Christian exclusivism and the Inquisition had nothing to do with his departure.

Though born in Cordoba and not a Jew, Averroes also suffered Almohad oppression, and “his teachings [were] condemned and his philosophical works torched as dangerous to religious faith,” according to the Cambridge Companion.

For the record, Averroes died in 1198, Maimonides died in 1204, and Cordoba was conquered by Christians in 1236. As for the translations, more hokum has been said on that subject than just about any other.Update. Andrew Bostom adds:

More on Cordoban “Ecumenism”

Reinhart Dozy (1820-1883), the great Orientalist scholar and Islamophile, wrote a four volume magnum opus (published in 1861 and translated into English by Francis Griffin Stokes in 1913), Histoire des Musselmans d’Espagne (A History of the Muslims in Spain). Here is Dozy’s historical account of the mid-8th century “conversion” of a Cordovan cathedral to a mosque:

All the churches in that city [Cordova] had been destroyed except the cathedral, dedicated to Saint Vincent, but the possession of this fane [church or temple] had been guaranteed by treaty. For several years the treaty was observed; but when the population of Cordova was increased by the arrival of Syrian Arabs [i.e., Muslims], the mosques did not provide sufficient accommodation for the newcomers, and the Syrians considered it would be well for them to adopt the plan which had been carried out at Damascus, Emesa [Homs], and other towns in their own country, of appropriating half of the cathedral and using it as a mosque. The [Muslim] Government having approved of the scheme, the Christians were compelled to hand over half of the edifice. This was clearly an act of spoliation, as well as an infraction of the treaty. Some years later, Abd-er Rahman I requested the Christians to sell him the other half. This they firmly refused to do, pointing out that if they did so they would not possess a single place of worship. Abd-er Rahman, however, insisted, and a bargain was struck by which the Christians ceded their cathedral….

Indeed by the end of the eighth century, the brutal Muslim jihad conquest of North Africa and of Andalusia had imposed rigorous Maliki jurisprudence as the predominant school of Muslim law. Thus, as Evariste Lévi-Provençal (1894-1956)-the greatest modern scholar of Muslim Spain whose Histoire de l’Espagne Musulmane remains a defining work-observed three quarters of a century ago:

The Muslim Andalusian state thus appears from its earliest origins as the defender and champion of a jealous orthodoxy, more and more ossified in a blind respect for a rigid doctrine, suspecting and condemning in advance the least effort of rational speculation.

For example, the contemporary scholar J.M. Safran discusses an early codification of the rules of the marketplace (where Muslims and non-Muslims would be most likely to interact), written by al-Kinani (d. 901), a student of the Cordovan jurist Ibn Habib (d. 853), “…known as the scholar of Spain par excellence,” who was also one of the most ardent proponents of Maliki doctrine in Muslim Spain:

…the problem arises of “the Jew or Christian who is discovered trying to blend with the Muslims by not wearing the riqā [cloth patch, which might be required to have an emblem of an ape for a Jew, or a pig for a Christian] or zunnār [belt].” Kinani’s insistence that Jews and Christians wear the distinguishing piece of cloth or belt required of them is an instance of a legally defined sartorial differentiation being reconfirmed…His insistence may have had as much to do with concerns for ritual purity and food prohibitions as for the visible representation of social and political hierarchy, and it reinforced limits of intercommunal relations

Moroever Ibn Hazm was not merely a Muslim “poet,” and hardly a paragon of ecumenism. He was a viciously bigoted Antisemitic Muslim theologian, whose inflammatory writings helped incite the massive pogrom against the Jews of Granada which killed 4000, and destroyed the entire community in 1066. And Averroes, despite his “philosophical studies,” was also a traditionally bigoted Maliki jurist who rendered strong anti-infidel Sharia- rulings and endorsed classical jihadism for the very same Almohads who eventually turned upon him.

Finally, what Maimonides escaped in the 12th century-disguised as a Muslim-was nothing less than a full-blown Muslim Inquisition under the Almohads. The jihad depredations of the Almohads (1130-1232) wreaked enormous destruction on both the Jewish and Christian populations in Spain and North Africa. This devastation-massacre, captivity, and forced conversion-was described by the Jewish chronicler Abraham Ibn Daud, and the poet Abraham Ibn Ezra. Suspicious of the sincerity of the Jewish converts to Islam, Muslim “inquisitors”, i.e., antedating their Christian Spanish counterparts by three centuries, removed the children from such families, placing them in the care of Muslim educators. Ibn Aqnin (d. 1220), a renowned philosopher and commentator, who was born in Barcelona in 1150, also fled the Almohad persecutions with his family, escaping, like Maimonides, to Fez. Living there as a crypto-Jew, he met Maimonides and recorded his own poignant writings about the sufferings of the Jews under Almohad rule. Ibn Aqnin wrote during the reign of Abu Yusuf al-Mansur (r. 1184-1199), four decades after the onset of the Almohad persecutions in 1140. Thus the Jews forcibly converted to Islam were already third generation Muslims. Despite this, al-Mansur continued to impose restrictions upon them, which Ibn Aqnin chronicles.

As I previously pointed out, you don’t have to get into Constitutional questions, sanctified ground, and other such issues to see the problem with the proposed “Ground Zero” mosque. There are two critical issues which should settle matters:–On purely “normal” grounds of city regulations, legal requirements, and good business practices, this project should never have gotten off the ground. The developer has a bad record and is incapable of implementing the project, the financing isn’t there, and they don’t even own half the property in question.–What we are dealing with, then, is not “Islamophobia” but special privileges accorded to a group beyond what others would have received. This has been done, in part, by politicians who wanted to bask in the light of pretended tolerance and ensure they weren’t accused of “Islamophobia.”When democratic governments ignore their own laws and mass media stop reporting the news that means trouble. Now there’s even more evidence to support my thesis. The project’s chief developer, Sharif el-Gamal, has been evicted from his Soho office for not paying $39,000 in back rent. It is just one more in a long string of http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/nyregion/17rift.html?pagewanted=1&sq=fe…“>brushes with the law by this man, whose sudden rise from wealth waiter to multimillionaire still cannot be explained. Nothing wrong with someone bettering himself but when the way it has happened is so mirky and the person is involved in such a controversial project that calls for some investigation being done.Now the mosque’s imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, who has been painted by the mass media in near-saintly terms despite a history of radical Islamist statements, is showing his seamy side. He’s the owner of two New Jersey apartment buildings where he has refused to make repairs, endangering tenants’ lives, and now is defying a court. See HERE and HERE for details. Here’s a study of Rauf’s record by a Muslim critic.There are two additional lessons from this information.–One tenant, Cindy Balko, said: “I’ve been here since the building opened [in 1990] and it hasn’t been peaceful with this owner. He cares nothing about the people who live in this building. Not a thing….It’s fine and dandy that he can build a mosque,” Balko said. “But he doesn’t take care of this building or the building around the corner, and he’s going to take care of a mosque?”Right. Equally, he cares nothing about the feelings of the people of New York or of the country who have asked that the mosque be moved. His response was to threaten them–only as an observer, of course–of massive violence in the Muslim-majority world and the killing of U.S. soldiers if they don’t do what he wants.–Rauf views himself as being above the law. Aside from all of the above points, he simply didn’t show up for a court hearing, with no explanation, nor submit documents demanded by the judge who, understandably, blasted Rauf and his lawyer for their behavior. But why shouldn’t he think himself above the law when New York City and New York State has been so quick to treat him that way regarding the mosque issue, while the State Department send him on a free trip despite his lack of support for U.S. foreign policy (a requirement, even if they don’t admit that publicly) and doesn’t spring into action to investigate reports that he is using the trip to raise money (a violation of State Department regulations).The buildings are so dangerous that Union City, NJ, is suing him to take them over. The risk of fire is considered so dangerous that taxpayers there must pay for a fire watch. Tenants are living amidst leaks, mold, bedbug and rodent infestation, as well as fire hazards. according to the city’s mayor.As a “man of God” who talks about morality all the time, bridge-building, etc., it is particularly egregious for Rauf to act this way. Given the fact that he knows he is controversial and people can be expected to look for “dirt” on him, it is reckless behavior and shows dangerous character flaws. Or maybe he isn’t worried about the mass media investigating him because it hasn’t up until now done so.This is a pattern seen around the world, including the failure to report on key indicators of what radical Islamists think and do, see here and here for examples. When political extremists and criminal con-men receive, respectively, concessions and flattery or special privileges they don’t respond with gratitude but with increased aggression and rapacity. They conclude that they are entitled to everything they want and act accordingly.

Ghazis is the Arabic for Raiders. No wonder the Imam kept on using U.S. football strategies when describing his actions. Sorry Rauf. New York already had the Giants and the Jets.

Should there be a mosque near Ground Zero? In fact, what is pro posed is not a mosque — nor even an “Islamic cultural center.” In Islam, every structure linked to the faith and its rituals has a precise function and character. A mosque is a one-story gallery built around an atrium with a mihrab (a niche pointing to Mecca) and one, or in the case of Shiites two, minarets. Other Islamic structures, such as harams, zawiyyahs, husseinyiahs and takiyahs, also obey strict architectural rules. Yet the building used for spreading the faith is known as Dar al-Tabligh, or House of Proselytizing.

This 13-story multifunctional structure couldn’t be any of the above. The groups fighting for the project know this; this is why they sometimes call it an Islamic cultural center. But there is no such thing as an Islamic culture. Islam is a religion, not a culture. Each of the 57 Muslim-majority nations has its own distinct culture — and the Bengali culture has little in common with the Nigerian. Then, too, most of those countries have their own cultural offices in the US, especially in New York. Islam is an ingredient in dozens of cultures, not a culture on its own. In theory, at least, the culture of American Muslims should be American. Of course, this being America, each ethnic community has its distinct cultural memories — the Iranians in Los Angeles are different from the Arabs in Dearborn. In fact, the proposed structure is known in Islamic history as a rabat — literally a connector. The first rabat appeared at the time of the Prophet. The Prophet imposed his rule on parts of Arabia through a series of ghazvas, or razzias (the origin of the English word “raid”). The ghazva was designed to terrorize the infidels, convince them that their civilization was doomed and force them to submit to Islamic rule. Those who participated in the ghazva were known as the ghazis, or raiders. After each ghazva, the Prophet ordered the creation of a rabat — or a point of contact at the heart of the infidel territory raided. The rabat consisted of an area for prayer, a section for the raiders to eat and rest and facilities to train and prepare for future razzias. Later Muslim rulers used the tactic of ghazva to conquer territory in the Persian and Byzantine empires. After each raid, they built a rabat to prepare for the next razzia. It is no coincidence that Islamists routinely use the term ghazva to describe the 9/11 attacks against New York and Washington. The terrorists who carried out the attack are referred to as ghazis or shahids (martyrs). Thus, building a rabat close to Ground Zero would be in accordance with a tradition started by the Prophet. To all those who believe and hope that the 9/11 ghazva would lead to the destruction of the American “Great Satan,” this would be of great symbolic value. Faced with the anger of New Yorkers, the promoters of the project have started calling it the Cordoba House, echoing President Obama’s assertion that it would be used to propagate “moderate” Islam. The argument is that Cordoba, in southern Spain, was a city where followers of Islam, Christianity and Judaism lived together in peace and produced literature and philosophy. In fact, Cordoba’s history is full of stories of oppression and massacre, prompted by religious fanaticism. It is true that the Muslim rulers of Cordoba didn’t force their Christian and Jewish subjects to accept Islam. However, non-Muslims could keep their faith and enjoy state protection only as dhimmis (bonded ones) by paying a poll tax in a system of religious apartheid. If whatever peace and harmony that is supposed to have existed in Cordoba were the fruit of “Muslim rule,” the subtext is that the United States would enjoy similar peace and harmony under Islamic rule. A rabat in the heart of Manhattan would be of great symbolic value to those who want a high-profile, “in your face” projection of Islam in the infidel West. This thirst for visibility is translated into increasingly provocative forms of hijab, notably the niqab (mask) and the burqa. The same quest mobilized hundreds of Muslims in Paris the other day to close a whole street so that they could have a Ramadan prayer in the middle of the rush hour. One of those taking part in the demonstration told French radio that the aim was to “show we are here.” “You used to be in our capitals for centuries,” he said. “Now, it is our turn to be in the heart of your cities.” Before deciding whether to support or oppose the “Cordoba” project, New Yorkers should consider what it is that they would be buying. Bloomberg when you play Quarterback you are not supposed to sack yourself

It is amusing to see the media blame the Cordoba Mosque conflict as a setup by Conservatives

….who’s really been politicizing Ground Zero? The mosque’s biggest supporter, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, had aggressively tried to politicize Ground Zero back in 2005 with the International Freedom Center, with George Soros and the ACLU pushing exhibits on Islamophobia and the loss of civil liberties in America. Governor Pataki shut down the IFC’s plans to politicize Ground Zero over Bloomberg’s loud protests. Meanwhile the current plans for exhibits commemorating 9/11 at the site are being attacked by liberals complaining about a “lack of context”, which is their way of saying that they want to politicize the site by suggesting that America was to blame.The New York Times has added its voice to the chorus of complaints about “politicizing Ground Zero”. But in 2005, the Times editorial complained that Campaign America’s call to refrain from politicizing Ground Zero is Un-American. The cynicism here is virtually unbelievable.The entire “Politicizing Ground Zero” talking point is a response to the fallout from Obama’s own attempt to politicize Ground Zero by pandering to a Muslim crowd. When the polls number turned red, the media rushed to attack Republicans for politicizing Obama’s own politicization of the issue. They claimed that Obama had just been functioning as a Constitutional law professor, delivering an abstract lecture on law at a White House event aimed at pandering to Muslims. The transparent ridiculousness of this excuse is almost lost in the clamor of self-righteousness, as the biggest supporters of the IFC suddenly discover a heartfelt desire not to allow politics to intrude on Ground Zero.

a SECOND MOSQUE Being Planned- and website Boosts—They will raise the Flag of Allah-Next to Ground Zero Muslims in NYC Planning to Build Second, Smaller Mosque Near Ground Zero

As controversy surrounds the construction of a 13-story mosque just two blocks from Ground Zero, FOX News has learned that an effort to place a second mosque close to the hallowed site in New York City is in its advanced stages.

The Masjid Mosque has raised $8.5 million and is seeking an additional $2.5 million to begin construction. While it apparently has not settled on a final location, it has told donors it plans to build very close to where 3,000 people were killed in the September 11 terror attacks.

In fact, the WEBSITE SEE HERE appealing for donations boldly states that it plans to “build the ‘House of Allah’ next to the World Trade Center. Help us raise the flag of ‘LA ILLAH ILLA ALLAH’ in downtown Manhattan.”…….

One source said he believed the planners are considering a five-story building on 23 Park Place, closer to Ground Zero than the 13-story mosque the Cordoba Initiative is planning to build. But a tax record search shows that 23 Park Place is in private hands and has not changed owners since 2008.

Unlike the massive $100 million Cordoba House mosque, the Masjid Mosque is small – and it is no stranger to the neighborhood. Since 1970 it had been located at 12 Warren Street, about four blocks north of the World Trade Center, in a neat but nondescript industrial space that once housed a printing shop. It lost its lease in 2008 when the building was sold, and it was evicted from its second-floor prayer space on May 25 of that year. Since then it has been operating out a cramped basement space in a nearby building at 20 Warren Street.

On Friday evenings the mosque, which is popular with street vendors and taxi drivers, becomes so crowded that worshipers spill onto nearby sidewalks to pray in what has come to be a community event.

A press representative for Daisy Kahn, executive director of the Cordoba Initiative, said neither she nor anyone in her group had been aware of the Masjid’s efforts. “They have no connection to us,” she said. “We didn’t even know they were there.”

Masjid mosque leaders claim on their website that they are deeply involved in converting people to Islam and run a special program to convert those who are interested.

Efforts to reach mosque leaders were not successful. Calls left with Naheem Mohammed, the mosque’s treasurer, were not returned. Calls to the mosque itself were not answered. And efforts to reach Abdullah El-Khory, the president of the mosque’s board, were not successful.

Julie Menin, chairwoman of Community Board 1, also declined to return several calls. The board, which monitors and approves all development in the financial district surrounding Ground Zero and has been stung by criticism from the families of 9/11 victims, is permitted to assess the impact of building a mosque at the site. LINK TO SOURCE

Ruins of the 16th St. Baptist Church in Which 4 Young Girls Lost Their Lives

Wise Beyond his Years: Isaac Luria of J Street

African American leaders greeted with enthusiasm KKK plans to erect a church and cultural center on the site of the September 15th, 1963 bombing of the 16th St. Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama in which 4 young girls were killed. Leaders of the Alabama Democratic Party as well as national progressive personalities applauded the plans to construct the house of worship as an expression of healing and reconciliation. J Street, the “Pro Israel”, “Pro Peace” organization joined in an expression of solidarity with the KKK.Isaac Luria, J Street’s official spokesperson, issued the following statement in response to opposition to the construction of the cultural center and church:

“I am proud as an American and as a Jew that our heritage is grounded in a strong belief in equality, justice, and religious freedom…I was taught that if freedom can be denied to a single person because of who they are, it can happen to anyone of us.It is time for those of us who share these beliefs to stand up as another religious minority looks to exercise its legal rights in the United States.”

Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York added in support of the project, ““What is great about America, and particularly New York, is we welcome everybody, and if we are so afraid of something like this, what does that say about us? Montgomery should welcome this project as enthusiastically as New York would.”The fact that the Grand Wizard refused to name the KKK a “terrorist” organization was apparently not sufficient to deter the project’s proponents from endorsing it.